Thursday, August 30, 2012

As the election season rolls on I become more jaded. I am troubled most by the absence of truth in our politics.
Facts don’t matter in America anymore. Truth doesn’t matter in America any
more. Maybe it never did, but as Romney pollster Neil Newhouse
put is, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” F
the truth.

How did this happen to us? Let me suggest one explanation.
In our quest to raise the self-esteem of our kids we stopped challenging them
to be accurate and informed by facts, and started rewarding them for opinionated. Facts became irrelevant, and critical thinking was sacrificed on the alter of an open mindedness that soon became empty headedness.
People are going to vote based on half-truths and outright lies. What kind of
government will that give us? The one we deserve.

* * *

Congressman Ryan believes that our rights come from God and
Nature and not government. Really? He then said “This idea is founded on the principles of liberty,
freedom, free enterprise, self-determination and government by consent of the
governed.” You can’t have it both
ways. If the idea that rights come from God and Nature is founded on principles
other than God and Nature, our rights do not come from God and Nature. But even if they did, nowhere in Nature do we find the principles of liberty, free, free
enterprise, self-determination and government by consent of the governed. And nowhere in the Bible (from which the Congressman gets his idea of
God) do we find the principles
of liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination and government by
consent of the governed.

These
ideas come from the 18th century and were in opposition to the oppressive
religion of its time. Today we have linked them to the religious tyrannies of
the past in order to blind people to the coming religious tyrannies of the near
future.

* * *

If you want to see where the United States is headed watch Copper on BBC America.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

I just read an excerpt from Daniel Gordis’ upcoming book,
“Why the Future of American Jewry Depends on the Survival of Israel”. In the
article he explains that, like it or not, we American Jews would suffer
terribly if Israel were destroyed. I happen to agree, but think things are far
more dangerous than Dr. Gordis admits.

First, let me put my cards on the table: I am a Zionist. I
believe every people deserves homeland, and Israel is the homeland of the Jews.
I also support Palestine as the homeland for Palestinians, and Tibet as the
homeland for Tibetans, etc. My Zionism, however, doesn’t cause me to support
any specific Israeli government or set of policies. I am an American first and
foremost, and long for an Israel that is at least as democratic as we used to
be, and far less theocratic than many of my fellow citizens want us to be.

That said, what bothers me about Dr. Gordis’ claim is that
it posits the destruction of Israel as if that could happen in a vacuum. It
can’t and it won’t. Here are just three possible scenarios that would include
the destruction of Israel but have ramifications far beyond Israel alone:

1.If Israel thought she was going to be destroyed
she would use the nuclear option and turn the Middle East into a wasteland. The
death of millions would ensue, and we Jews would go down in history as mass
murderers. As radioactive fallout blew toward the United States, gas and oil
prices would rise far beyond the purchasing power of most Americans. Our
economy would crash and we would blame it all on the Jews. Every Jew in any
position of power or influence would be fired or voted out of office, and we Jews
would become anathema to America. We would have to leave, but there would be
nowhere for us to go.

2.If it looked like Israel will be destroyed
America would come to Israel’s aid militarily. This would spark WW III pitting
NATO against Russia, China, Iran, and many if not all Muslim nations. The
chances of this war going nuclear would be extremely high, and Jews would be
blamed for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. The economies of every
nation would crumble, and American Jews (all Jews really, but we are talking
about American Jews) would become a pariah people. We would have to leave, but
there would be nowhere for us to go.

3. If it
looked like Israel will be destroyed and America did not come to Israel’s aid,
American Jews would clamor for intervention, fail, and suddenly find themselves
as second class citizens at best or anathema to America at worst. If America
was once again willing to deem the deaths of millions of Jews as tangential to
its national interest, American Jews would have to leave, but there would be
nowhere for us to go.

Monday, August 20, 2012

As almost all of you know, during an interview on a St.
Louis TV station, Rep. Todd Akin said that during a “legitimate rape” woman’s
bodies somehow compensate for the attack and protect the woman from getting
pregnant. The implication is that woman who do get pregnant and claim rape are
lying about being legitimately raped.

Rep. Akin is grievously wrong on this, make no mistake about
that. But he is not ignorant as so many TV pundits are claiming, nor did he “misspeak”
as the Representative himself is claiming. He spoke the truth as he knew it;
the “truth” that is being taught our children in many abstinence only sex ed
programs.

I have heard on numerous occasions from women who have been
educated in abstinence only programs that they were taught exactly what Rep.
Akin affirmed: woman cannot get pregnant if raped.

It isn’t that Rep. Akin is ignorant, it is that the education
he received in this regard is patently false. This is greater than one Tea
Party backed politician spewing ignorance, this is about a well funded,
politically backed, and quite popular educational program in our schools (and
our home schooling movements) promoting blatant falsehoods.

If all we do is focus on Rep. Akin and ignore the greater
tragedy that is sex education in this country, we are doing our children and
ourselves a grave disservice.

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

God always answers our prayers. Sometimes
the answer is “no.” You’ve probably heard this said dozens if not hundreds
of times. It’s God’s “Get Out of Jail Free” card. In other words, no matter
what you get in response to what you pray for, you can say God answered your
prayers, and your faith in God is maintained.

In his new book The Ultimate Conversation Charles
Stanley writes that while God always answers our prayers God may not do so in
the way we expect. Case in point Stanley says is the Jews and the coming of
Christ. Two thousand years ago the Jews prayed for a military redeemer who
would overthrow the Romans and liberate the Jews. What they got was the Prince
of Peace and almost 2000 years of Jewish persecution at the hands of his
church. Talk about not getting what you want!

But why stop with
the Jews? If God’s answer to prayer can be the exact opposite of the prayer
itself, why can’t it be that when Christians prayed for the return of Jesus,
God sent them Mohammed instead? If God can supplement the Hebrew Bible with the
New Testament, why can’t God supplement the New Testament with the Qur’an? Or,
to be more blunt, why is it that God can mess with the Jews but not the
Christians?

It seems to me
that prayer is simply an expression of egoic desire: we pray to get what we
want and avoid what we don’t want. Because we don’t always get what we want and
yet cannot give up on the idea that we could get what we want we invent the
notion that God always answers our prayers but not necessarily by giving us
what we want.

This reminds me of
a guy I met at a gas station yesterday. He was buying lottery tickets. By the
looks of him he had been hit hard by the economy. I asked him if he had ever
won any lottery money. He said he hadn’t. I asked him why he continued to spend
money on lottery tickets. He said he didn’t want to give up on the dream. Maybe
he should pray a little as well.

Monday, August 06, 2012

Missourians
vote tomorrow to save prayer in the public square. A proposed amendment to the
state’s constitution would protect a person’s right to pray in public, and
would allow students to opt out of any assignment or learning experience that
violates their religious teachings. A
recent poll suggests the amendment will pass by a huge margin, and I say more
power to ‘em. It’s about time that Missouri’s 80% Christian majority stand up
to the overwhelming 20% who have been forcing them into the closet for years. St.
Louis alone has only 3700 churches; my God the city is almost as church free as
Saudi Arabia!

Of
course the amendment doesn’t limit this freedom to Christians alone, so people
of false faiths can pray to their false gods as well, but this can be corrected
with an amendment to the amendment which I expect will probably be filed in a
year or so. In the meantime it is springtime for theists. I want to see
Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Rastafarians, Mormon, Catholics, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Scientologists, Moonies, and devotees of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster as well as oppressed Protestants praying all over the state. The more
the merrier.

As
for students opting out of learning on religious grounds, this can only bode
well for the state’s educational ranking. For example, if you believe the earth
to be only 10,000 years old you can opt out of most science classes. And if you
believe that evolution is the Devil’s lie you can opt out of the rest. So the
only students who will take science courses will be kids who like science, and
that can only improve the states ratings on nationwide science evaluations.

Similarly
in English classes if students can skip any readings that might not support
their particular faith. For some the only book they will read is the Bible.
Again this can only improve the state’s English ranking as students who don’t
do well in English will drop out and focus on reading Mark rather than Mark
Twain.

Good
for you, Missouri. The “show me” is going to show the rest of us just what a free
pray state is about I can’t wait.

Sunday, August 05, 2012

People attending
the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro will have to pass by thirteen crosses
erected by the neighboring Grace Baptist Church. According to the local paper
(Daily News Journal) three of the crosses, including the tallest one, stand for
the Trinity, and the other ten represent the Great Commission given to the
apostles by the resurrected Christ to evangelize the world (Matthew 28: 18-20).

While there is no
equivalent statement in Islam, there should be no doubt that Islam, too, is a
missionary faith. And while most Muslims and Christians probably play down the
fact, missionizing the world is what both religions are about. Historically
both have done so by the sword, though today (with some exceptions) persuasion
is the preferred method of conversion.

What we have
brewing in Murfressboro is a classic contest between two competing faiths.
While many may find the crosses an affront to Islam, and while some within the
Grace Baptist Church may even intend them to be such, the fact is we may be in
for a good ol’ American advertising war. Think of it as the religious
equivalent of the great department store wars between Macy’s and Gimbels in New
York City. While Gimbels never had a huge nationwide presence, the publicity
generated by its rivalry with Macy’s raised its status far more than the store
could have done on its own. Given that we are talking about a mosque in Murfreesboro
rather than a church in Istanbul, I would link the Islamic Center to Gimbels.
The more Grace Baptist trumpets Christianity over Islam, the more interesting
and enticing Islam may become for people in the ‘Boro.

An honest and
passionate religious rivalry is good for both faiths. Each should put its best
foot forward and make their case for why they are right and where the other is
wrong. We can learn a lot about each religion from this. All I ask is that we
do not allow a potentially educational and very American rivalry between “Macy’s”
and “Gimbles” to devolve into a violent yet no less American feud between
Hatfields and McCoys.

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Chick-fil-A
president Dan Cathy supports traditional Bible family values, and because he
does many have condemned him and his company as being anti-homosexual and
anti-marriage equality. And because many think this way Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
has suggested that Chick-fil-A be banned in Boston. We have come a long way in
America. I’m just not sure which way that is.

Let me put my
cards on the table: First, I’m a vegetarian, and while I suspect the lives of
the chickens whose corpses end up being served at Chick-fil-A are unhappy ones,
I am not one to ban restaurants simply because the food served there is the
result of brutal abuse.

Second I am
against Boston banning things. The reason for this is more historical than
political. I’m from Springfield, MA, and the first book to be banned in Boston
was a 1651 criticism of Puritanism written by William Pynchon, the founder of
my fair city. Mr. Pynchon fled back to England to avoid the pressure coming his
way from Boston, and his doing so almost caused Springfield to align itself
with nearby Connecticut, which would have led to my being born in Connecticut,
which is something I find appalling, although for no apparent reason.

Third, I respect
and do my best to live by Bronze Age biblical food values. I don’t eat pig,
lobster, shrimp, or any of the other abominations God created for us not to
eat. So I am not anti-Bible by any means. In fact I’m pro biblical family
values as well.

The Bible is
clearly in favor of unwed couples living together and even having children. The
Hebrew Bible never says Adam and Eve were married, nor—cowardly English
translations aside—does the Hebrew ever call them husband and wife. Polygamy
too is fine: Abraham had two wives, Jacob had two wives and two concubines, and
King Solomon had 700 wives. So let Utah be Utah! Nor does the Bible condemn Eve
for giving birth to her own grandchildren via her sons (there were no other
women back then), or Lot’s daughters having kids by their father because they
were too lazy to walk to the next town and find some guys hanging out around a
well. And then there is Lot himself offering his daughters to be gang raped by
the men of Sodom, Abraham twice pimping his first wife to Pharaoh, and the
option to “marry” women carried away as war booty. None of this is counter to
the Bible’s family values, so, hey, what’s not to like?

If we are going to
complain about people violating biblical values let’s start with St. Paul who
condemns lesbians when the Bible (his Bible!) only condemns gay men. Which
brings me back to Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A.

If you are going
to live your life by the mores of Bronze Age literature, Mr. Cathy, you can’t
do much better than the Bible. All I ask is that you abide by the actual values
themselves, and not your own inventions.

And please, Mayor
Menino, don’t ban Chick-fil-A. You just might cause a mass emigration to Connecticut.